Category: economy

Could Australia follow the Greek path?

Is Australia really different from Greece?

Business Spectator’s Robert Gottliebsen today describes how Australia has caught the Greek disease of low productivity and an overvalued currency.

This is interesting as just last week Robert was bleating on behalf of Australia’s middle class welfare state.

Australia’s productivity has stagnated over the last 15 years, but unlike Greece the ten years before that was a period of massive reform to both employment practices and government spending.

The structure of the Australian economy is very different, not least in its openness, to that of Greece.

What’s more Australia has a floating currency which will eventually correct itself unlike the Euro that Greece finds itself trapped in.

That’s not to say Australians won’t be hurt when that currency correction happens. The failure of the nation’s political, business and media elites in failing to recognise and plan for this is an indictment on all of them – including Robert Gottliebsen.

Australia’s real similarity with Greece is the entitlement culture that both nations have developed.

Over those last 15 years of poor productivity growth, Australia has seen a massive explosion of middle class welfare under the Howard Liberal government which has been institutionalised by the subsequent Rudd and Gillard Labor governments.

Today middle class Australians believe they have a right to generous government benefits subsidising their superannuation, school fees and self funded retirements.

For all the sneering of Australian triumphalists about Greek hairdressers getting lavish government benefits, Australia isn’t far behind Greece in believing these entitlements are a birthright.

A middle class entitlement culture is the real similarity between Australia and Greece. It’s unsustainable in every country that harbours these illusions.

Unlike Greece, Australia doesn’t have sugar daddies in Brussels, Paris and Berlin desperate to prop up the illusion of the European Union. Australia is own its own when the consequences of magic pudding economics become apparent.

Australia’s day of reckoning may arrive much quicker than that of Greece. Then we’ll see the test of how Australians and their politicians are different from our Greek friends.

No exit

The problem of selling your business to fund retirement.

The men’s hairdresser down the road from me has hung up his scissors after twenty-four years.

The sign on his shop window apologizes and the shop itself is up for lease. Shortly there won’t be any evidence a long standing local business was once there.

Roy had no exit from his business and he sell the operation as a going concern.

For Roy his retirement will be funded solely out of his savings. If he’s lucky he’ll have saved enough of his income from the business for a comfortable retirement – unfortunately many small business owners they’ll eke out the rest of their lives on the pension.

Even for those who have planned for an exit, many of their plans have fallen over in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

It’s always been questionable whether Gen X and Y entrepreneurs could afford to pay the sums for the affluent retirement of Baby Boomer business owners but now the post 2008 contraction in lending means it’s even less likely retiring business owners like Roy will find someone to buy their businesses.

While the focus is on twenty something app developers selling their businesses for a billion dollars, the truth is that wealth for most business owners lies in the local newsagent, hairdresser or coffee shop owner being able to sell their operation for a reasonable return.

For many baby boomer business owners it’s going to mean working more years than they intended and sharply reduced retirement expectations.

Property values too are difficult. Many boomer businesses had the sensible model of buying the property their business occupies as a retirement nest egg.

Again those properties are too expensive for the new generation and the deleveraging economy means the outlook for property values isn’t good.

On every level, things are going to be tough for those wanting to sell businesses over the next decade.

Those who do get good prices for their businesses are going to be those doing something exceptional to gain attention with income and profits that make them stand out from the cloud.

Just being the best hairdresser in the neighbourhood or having a popular cafe isn’t going to be enough.

Hopefully Roy The Barber managed to stash away enough for a well deserved comfortable retirement.

When taxpayers hearts sink

Outsourcing can be a good thing, but governments often get it wrong.

Nothing is sadder than a government or business that believes it will gain huge savings through outsourcing.

Part of the 1980s management mindset is that outsiders can do a job better and cheaper than existing staff. Almost always this is proved to be expensively wrong.

The announcement the New South Wales Government will outsource Sydney Ferries is a good example of this. Media reports claim the “government is hoping to save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade.”

Good luck with that. As the people of Melbourne found when the Victorian government outsourced operations of suburban trains and trams the levels of service remained poor, subsidies increased and new level of bureaucracy developed to manage the disconnect between a private operator running a service accountable to the public.

Advocates of outsourcing always overlook the cost, time and skills involved in supervising contractors.

This is something the banks found in the early days of offshoring services as the claimed massive labour cost savings by moving operations to the developing world were offset by higher supervision costs.

Governments have a bigger problem with outsourcing as the public service generally lacks the contractual and project management skills to effectively specify and supervise major service outsourcing contracts.

A good example of this is the Royal North Shore Cleaning contract where the hospital has seen a fall in hygiene levelsas the contractor attempt to meet their KPIs under an agreement that has been designed primarily to save the area health service money.

Focusing on cost savings when outsourcing is almost always a recipe for failure. In both business and government its rare that a function or operating unit is so badly managed that savings offset the increased management expenses.

This isn’t to say outsourcing isn’t always appropriate. Sometimes those savings are achievable – albeit not as often as proponents claim – and outsourcing can deliver skills that the parent organisation lacks.

Which is another concern about the Sydney Ferries outsourcing. The Sydney Morning Herald article referred to above says the following about the CEO of the winning consortium.

Mr Faurby, who has more than 20 years maritime experience, has never run a passenger service before. But he said he understood what it would take to improve Sydney’s ferries.

”It doesn’t really matter very much if it is a towage, tug company, or a container shipping company, or for that matter a ferry company … what matters is that you have the competencies to run it in an efficient, safe and effective manner.”

Um no. That’s 1980s management school thinking where every business – from airlines to software – can be reduced to selling soap.

Not having experience in running a passenger service with all the customer service issues that come when you’re dealing with the public is a concern. One hopes, prays even, that Mr Faurby and his employers have the wisdom to support the CEO with managers who do have a customer service ethos.

Then there’s the black hole of Australian public transport – ticketing.

While it’s impossible to quantify just how poor Australian governments have proved themselves to be with ticketing systems; Sydney’s convoluted, complex, siloed and passenger unfriendly public transport system adds another layer of complexity that the new management of Sydney Ferries is going to have to deal with.

There’s no doubt though that Sydney Ferries need reform; its management was incompetent and, beyond the usual cheerful deckhands, the staff were surly with little concept of customer service.

Done well, outsourcing Sydney Ferries could be for the better; but the emphasis on cost savings and what appears to be naive management expectations should make taxpayers’ hearts sink.

Cargo cults and your business

Do you think the government, China or big business is going to save you?

“We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

“Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

“China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

“Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

“I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons

Reading the global tea leaves

What can we learn about the global economy from the world’s biggest corporation.

Where is the world economy heading? An interesting exercise by the website Business Insider looks at the earnings reports and announcements by some of the world’s biggest corporations to get an idea of the the direction of the global business world.

The results of Business Insider’s article are interesting and worthwhile of a closer look as we can see some real trends along with some risky bets by management who seem reluctant to acknowledge we’ve moved out of the 1980s.

China’s western water shortage

This is an interesting curve ball; one of the central planks of the China Cargo Cult that believes unfettered Chines growth will drive the world economy indefinitely is that the country’s inland provinces will grow in a similar pattern to that of the coastal provinces.

Anyone who has travelled in those provinces, particularly in the poorer Northern regions like Gansu, has seen first hand the serious erosion, desertification and water problems these areas face.

It shows the China story is not as simple as many of the cargo cultists believe.

Europe is not dead

Even in the darkest days there are opportunities for innovative organisations and regardless of what we think of McDonald’s products, they aren’t afraid to experiment and take risks.

McDonald’s move to “value meals” in Europe replicates what worked in the United States in both the 2001 and 2008 economic downturns. This appears to be working in Europe just as it did in North America.

We should also keep in mind that Europe is a diverse collection of cultures and economies so despair in Athens doesn’t necessarily mean pessimism in Arnhem.

The bottom of the US housing market

In his investor briefing, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon indicated the bank thought the US housing market is at the bottom subject to the American economy not going back into recession.

While it’s possible that the US housing market has bottomed, it’s highly unlikely we’re going to see the US housing market roar back to 2005 levels even if there is a US recovery so we shouldn’t be expecting hockey stick style growth in the US domestic sector driving the world economy as it did through the early 2000s.

Louis Vuitton confirms that the global market for ultra luxury goods is healthy

The entire luxury goods boom is a side effect of the massive amount of money pumped into to the world economy to deal with the 2008 economic crisis.

Like Macao casinos and Silicon Valley venture capital bubbles, this is transitory and at best a marginal influence on overall growth and employment.

It’s interesting how many presentations I’ve seen recently citing the luxury goods markets as evidence all is good in the world economy. This shows the desperation of those whose businesses rely on mindless consumerism.

China’s middle class will save us all

If you were searching for a corporate example of the economic cargo cult surrounding China, then Yum Foods would be one of the best.

The idea that China’s “consuming classes” will number half the nation’s population is some sort of economic Lake Wobegon, where everybody is above average.

Even if Yum’s prediction proves to be true, the nature of China’s economy and the nation’s stage of growth means consumption patterns of the country’s middle – or “consuming” – classes are going to more like those of Americans in 1912 rather than 2002 which undermines any business model based upon the late 20th Century’s profligate spending.

Businesses are once again investing in IT

Microsoft suprised us all last week with their profit results. Earnings from Windows, servers and office suites were all up on improved personal computer sales.

That businesses are investing in IT makes sense as one of the things that is cut early by organisations looking for savings is IT. That happened in 2009 in response to the economic crisis.

Even before the 2009 financial shock, businesses had been under-investing in IT partly because of Microsoft’s failure with the Vista operating system.

Now many businesses have decade old desktop computing systems and the pressures to upgrade are becoming intense.

The worry for Microsoft is Apple’s domination of mobile devices and the rise of cloud computing means that its not necessarily Microsoft will benefit from most of the IT investment.

Electricity prices will rise and low natural gas prices are unsustainable

Energy prices are a riddle within an enigma, however there’s certainly some distorting effects in these markets. CSX’s views on natural gas markets illustrate this.

We can expect more convulsions in energy prices as demand hinges on China, the US and European economic growth coupled with the threat of more conflict in Iran and Iraq.

Should China deliver the growth that the cargo cultists believe then energy prices will continue to climb, which may happen anyway.

The end of the telephone

Again Business Insider’s headline is a little misleading, as Verizon see the decline of the POTS – Plain Old Telephone System – networks that were designed around voice data and a switch to data based networks that don’t treat all traffic as information packets.

Data matters more than voice and we don’t want to be tied to a phone line.

That the telcos see mobile data as their main revenue drivers shouldn’t be a surprise as this has been the trend for two decades.

Consumers are borrowing again

This claim is a worry as it indicates some consumers – along with many lenders – are falling into the habits that nearly bought them unstuck in 2008.

A superficial view of the Amex announcement actually raises more questions than it answers and there’s a suspicion that the credit card provider is driving growth through special offers or reforming their excessive merchant charges.

Like JP Morgan, much of Amex’s optimism is based upon the US economy moving out of recession and American consumers resuming their credit binge. The latter may prove to be a bridge too far.

Winning in diverse European markets

Like McDonald’s, IBM sees plenty of opportunity in Europe and makes the point that, like Asia, the European markets are diverse.

IBM may turn out to be a more of a beneficiary of the increased IT spending that Microsoft is relying upon as Big Blue’s consulting services and cloud technologies are more attuned with where the enterprise computing market is going.

Also in an era of government austerity, IBM may be able to offer process savings to cash strapped agencies and authorities.

Asian consumers save the cigarette industry

There’s no doubt East Asian societies like a smoke so the idea that international tobacco brands see great opportunities in markets like South Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia shouldn’t be a surprise.

Interestingly China doesn’t feature in these projections as their market is largely closed to foreign manufacturers.

While the short term looks good for tobacco companies in East Asia, it’s difficult not to see that rising affluence starts to see public health and anti smoking campaigns similar to those in the West developing over the longer term.

Yahoo parties like it’s 1999

Web surfers want relevant content according to Yahoo’s management. Next month we’ll see these business giants claim social networks and cloud computing are the next big thing.

You can’t help but thing Yahoo’s management are very well qualified to tell us when horses have bolted and vanished over the horizon.

The problem for Yahoo is that customised content is expensive unless you’re going to “crowdsource” it with a social layer as Facebook does and Google is trying to do.

If Yahoo can pull something like this off – and there is no indication they can – then the business has a chance of surviving. Right now the smart money would be betting on the being broken up in the near future.

So where is the world economy going?

One unsurprising thing from these corporate projection is that some businesses are better prepared than others for the changes that are happening.

IBM and McDonald’s stand out as those prepared to innovate and change their business models to suit the prevailing situations.

Companies that believe the 1980s are just around the corner again seem to be the ones most vulnerable – its not surprising that its finance organisations like JP Morgan and Amex are betting the farm on continued massive growth in consumer debt.

The China Cargo Cultist are also vulnerable. If it turns out that Chinese growth – like US consumer spending in the 1980s – can’t go on forever then companies like Yum Foods are going to struggle with growth rates far lower than they expect.

One thing is clear, that there are a lot more nuances in the world’s economy that what you’d pick up from media headlines. The key for big and small entrepreneurs is figure out where these nuances present a business opportunity.

Black tea image courtesy of Zsuzsanna Kilian and SXC storck photos.

Culture beats strategy

What does the executive car park tell us about a business’ management culture?

Writer and business consultant Joseph Michelli says”Culture beats strategy, in fact it eats it for breakfast and lunch”.

This was one of the key points in a recent webinar about online retailer Zappos and its customer service culture.

Joseph’s right, the culture of an organisation is the ultimate key to its success, if managers and staff work “according to the book” and declaring “it’s not my job” then you end up with a siloed organisation where management are more interesting in protecting and growing their empires over helping customers.

With Zappos it’s interesting how it appears easy the integration into Amazon’s ownership has gone and this is probably because both have service centric cultures.

Both companies seem to have avoided employing Bozos as Guy Kawasaki famously put it a few years ago.

Your parking lot’s “biorhythm” looks like this:

  • 8:00 am – 10:00 am–Japanese cars exceed German cars
  • 10:00 am – 5:00 pm–German cars exceed Japanese cars
  • 5:00 pm – 10:00 pm–Japanese cars exceed German cars

Guy’s German car observation is spot on. When I was running a service business, one measure I used for a potentially troublesome client was how many expensive German cars were in the executive parking spaces, it was usually a good indicator that an organisation’s leaders are more interested in management perks than maintaining their technology.

Another useful measure was where those cars are parked, a good indicator of management’s sense of entitlement is when executive parking spots are conveniently next to the building entrance or lift lobby while customers expected to find a spot anywhere within ten blocks.

It all comes down to culture and when management are more concerned about parking spots and staff about free lunches, you know you’re dealing with an organisation where the customer – or the shareholder – isn’t the priority.

Taking care of our own

Our governments can’t fix every problem or address our every need. We need to take matters into our own hands.

“The council ought to do something” growled a friend who’d been stuck in a peak hour traffic jam.

That innocuous comment illustrates the fundamental challenge facing the developed world’s politicians – that we expect our governments to fix every problem we encounter.

In the case of the local traffic jam, the cars creating gridlock are parents driving their children to two nearby large private schools.

Despite the problem being caused by the choices of individuals – those decisions to send their kids to those schools and to drive them there – our modern mindset is “the government aught to do something” rather than suggesting people should be making other choices.

Socialising the costs of our private decisions is one of the core beliefs of the 1980s mindset.

Eventually though the money had to run out as we started to expect governments to solve every problem.

We’re seeing the effects of this in the United States where local governments are now having pull up black top roads, close schools and renege on retirement funds as those costs become too great.

As a society we have to accept there are limits to what governments can do for us.

Increasingly as the world economy deleverages, tax revenues fall and the truth that a benign government can’t fulfill our every need starts to dawn on the populace, we’ll realise that expecting politicians and public servants to save us is a vain hope as they simply don’t have the resources.

Bruce Springsteen puts this well in his song “We Take Care Of Our Own.”

The truth today is the cargo cult mentality of waiting for governments or cashed up foreigners to come and save us is over.

We’re going to have to rely more on our own businesses, families and communities to support us in times of need.

The existing institutions of the corporate welfare state are beginning to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

Joe Hockey knows this, but as a paid-up agent of the establishment he doesn’t dare nominate the massive cuts to middle class welfare and big business subsidies that are necessary to reform those institutions.

Waiting for the council to fix the local roundabout is nice but it doesn’t address the bigger problems.

It’s up to us to build the new institutions around our local communities and families. This is not a bad thing.

Is small business too pessimistic?

The small business sector doesn’t seem to be too confident about the future.

The MYOB March 2012 Business Monitor report is a disturbing document; not only does it show how low confidence is among Australian business owners, it also portrays a group that are making sacrifices for an uncertain future. Is this what small business has come to?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the survey is how long company founders go without a break. With one third reporting they had not taken holidays since starting their business, this statistic is constant regardless of how long the operation has been going.

As somebody who went a decade without taking a holiday, I have a lot of sympathy for business owners in that situation.

What really jumps out is the pessimism of business owners – a quarter don’t expect the economy to improve for at least two years and only 39% expect their revenues to rise.

That business owners would be so negative about the future is disturbing; they should be the most optimistic.

It’s also interesting that more than half are disappointed with levels of support from the government, does anyone expect different?

Quite frankly, if you want money or support from the government then get a job with the public service. I tried that for a few months and there’s plenty of pessimistic people there.

That small business owners are becoming as disillusioned as public servants is a concern for our economy and society. Hopefully it’s not a permanent condition.

Tracking the end of the consumer society

One statistic illustrates how economies are changing

I’m currently researching a presentation about the retail industry.

One of the things that leaps out when researching consumer behaviour is the savings rate.

For twenty-five years from the early 1980s to mid 2000s, the savings rate collapsed in Western economies; below are the US and Australian rates.

The US Personal savings rate shows the rise of consumerism
US Savings rates 1950 to 2020 – St Louis Federal Reserve
How did the Australian savings rate fall during the consumer boom
Australian Savings Rates 1980 to 2012 – Reserve Bank of Australia

 

The graphs show the same thing; households spent their savings over the 25 years which drove the consumer economy. It’s no accident that period was a good time to be a retailer.

Being on a deadline, I don’t have time to analyse these number further right now, but one thing is clear; most of the consumer boom from the Reagan Years onwards – or the equivalent from Maggie Thatcher or Paul Keating – was driven by households reducing their savings.

That couldn’t last and didn’t. Businesses and governments that are basing their decisions on what worked through the 1980s and 90s are going to struggle in the next decade.

Looking at these figures raises another suspicion – that graphs showing non-real estate investment by businesses and government would show similar declines over the 1980-2005 period.

It might be that golden period of what appeared to economic success was just us living off society’s collective savings.

Bubble economics

The fear of missing out drives most investment booms. Today’s Silicon Valley is no different.

You know you’re in an investment bubble when the pundits declare “we’re not in a bubble”.

A good example of this is Andy Baio’s defence of Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of Instagram.

Justifying the price, Andy compares the Facebook purchase with a number of notorious Silicon Valley buyouts using two metrics; cost per employee and cost per user.

Which proves the old saw of “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

The use of esoteric and barely relevant statistics is one of the characteristics of a bubble; all of a sudden the old metrics don’t apply and, because of the never ending blue sky ahead, valuations can only go up.

Andy’s statistics are good example of this and ignore the three things that really matter when a business is bought.

Current earnings

The simplest test of a business’ viability is how much money is it making? For the vast majority of businesses bought and sold in the world economy, this is the measure.

Whether you’re buying a local newsagency outright or shares in a multinational manufacturer, this is the simplest and most effective measure of a sensible investment.

Future earnings

More complex, but more important, are the prospects of future earnings. That local newsagency or multinational manufacturer might look like a good investment on today’s figures, but it may be in a declining market.

Similarly a business incurring losses at the moment may be profitable under better management. This was the basis of the buyout boom of the 1980s and much of the 1990s.

Most profitable of all is buying into a high growth business, if you can find the next Google or Apple you can retire to the coast. The hope of finding these is what drives much of the current venture capital gold rush.

Strategic reasons

For corporations, there may be good strategic reasons for buying out a business that on paper doesn’t appear to be a good investment.

There’s a whole host of reasons why an organisation would do that, one variation of the Silicon Valley business model is to buy in talented developers who are running their own startups. Google and Facebook have made many acquisitions of small software development companies for that reason.

Fear Of Missing Out

In the Silicon Valley model, the biggest strategic reason for paying over the odds for a business is FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out.

To be fair to the valley, this is true in any bubble – whether it’s for Dutch tulips in the 17th Century or Florida property in the 20th. If you don’t buy now, you’ll miss out on big profits.

When we look at Andy Baio’s charts in Wired, this is what leaps out. Most of the purchases were driven by managements’ fear they were going to miss The Next Big Thing.

The most notorious of all in Andy’s chart is News Corp’s 580 million dollar purchase of MySpace, although there were good strategic reasons for the transaction which Rupert Murdoch’s management team were unable to realise.

eBay’s $2.6 billion acquisition of Skype is probably the best example of Fear Of Missing Out, particularly given they sold it back to the original founders who promptly flicked it to Microsoft. eBay redeems itself though with the strategic purchase of PayPal.

Probably the worst track record goes to Yahoo! who have six of the thirty purchases listed on Andy’s list and not one of them has delivered for Yahoo!’s long suffering shareholders.

The term “greater fools” probably doesn’t come close to describe Yahoo!’s management over the last decade or so.

While Andy Baio’s article seeks to disprove the idea of a Silicon Valley bubble, what he shows is the bubble is alive, big and growing.

One of the exciting things about bubbles is they have a habit of growing bigger than most rational outsiders expect before they burst spectacularly.

We live in exciting times.

Hyping start ups for pleasure and profit

The Silicon Valley VC model is not sustainable for most businesses and industries.

Monday’s announcement that Facebook would buy photo sharing website Instagram shows the power of Silicon Valley investor networks and how they operate, we should be careful about trying to emulate that model too closely.

Intagram has been operating for 18 months, has 13 employees, has no prospects of making a profit and is worth a billion dollars to the social media giant. Pretty impressive.

A look at the employees and investors in Instagram shows the pedigree of the founders and their connections; all the regular Silicon Valley names appear – people connected with Google, Sequoia Capital, Twitter, Andreessen Horowitz.

The network is the key to the sale, just as groups of entrepreneurs, investors, workers and innovators came together to build manufacturing hubs like the English Midlands in the 18th Century, the US midwest in the 19th Century and the Pearl River Delta at the end of the 20th Century, so too have they come together in Silicon Valley for the internet economy.

It’s tempting for governments to try to ape the perceived successes of Silicon Valley through subsidies and industry support programs but real success is to build networks around the strengths of the local economy, this is what drove those manufacturing hubs and today’s successful technology centres.

What’s dangerous in the current dot com mania in Silicon Valley is the rest of the world is learning the wrong lessons; we’re glamourising a specific, narrow business model that’s built around a small group of insiders.

The Greater Fool business model is only applicable to a tiny sub set of well connected entrepreneurs in a very narrow ecosystem.

For most businesses the Greater Fool business model isn’t valid.

Even in Silicon Valley the great, successful business like Apple, Google and Facebook – and those not in Silicon Valley like Microsoft and Amazon – built real revenues and profits and didn’t grow by selling out to the dominant corporations of the day.

The Instagrams and other high profile startup buy outs are the exception, not the rule.

If we define “success” by finding someone willing to spend shareholders’ equity on a business without profits then these businesses are insanely successful.

Should we define business success by creating profits, jobs or shareholder value then the Silicon Valley VC model isn’t the one we want to follow.

We need to also keep in mind that Silicon Valley is a historical accident that owes as much to government spending on military technology as it does to entrepreneurs and well connected venture capital funds.

It’s unlikely any country – even the United States – could today replicate the Cold War defense spending that drove Silicon Valley’s development and much of California’s post World War II growth.

One thing the United States government has done is pump the world economy full of money to avoid a global depression after the crisis of 2008.

Some of that money has bubbled up in Silicon Valley and that’s where the money comes to buy companies like Instagram.

Rather than try to replicate the historical good fortune of others, we need to make our own luck by building the structures that work for our strengths and advantages.

What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?

Can a society that puts property speculation before innovation succeed in the 21st Century?

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is today one of the world’s biggest philanthropists having built his business from an obscure traffic management software company to what was at one stage the world’s biggest technology corporation.

But what if he’d been born in Sutherland, New South Wales rather than Seattle, Washington? How different would things have been for an Australian Bill Gates?

The first thing is he would have been encouraged to study law; just like his dad. In the 1970s lawyers had far more status and career prospects than software developers in Australia.

Causing more concern for his parents and career counselor would have been his determination to run his own business. It’s far safer to get a safe job, buy a house then start buying investment properties to fund your retirement.

The Funding Drought

If Bill still persisted with his ideas, he’d have hit a funding problem. No bank wouldn’t be interested in lending and his other alternatives would restricted.

In the Australia of the 1970s and 80s they’d be few alternatives for a business like Micro Soft. Even today, getting funding from angel groups and venture capital funds depend upon luck and connections rather than viable business ideas.

Bill Gates’ big break came when IBM knocked on his door to solve their problem of finding a personal computer operating system; the likelihood of any Australian company seeking help from a small operator – let alone one run by a a couple of twenty somethings – is so unlikely even today it’s difficult to comprehend that happening.

Eventually an antipodean Bill Gates would have probably admitted defeat, wound up his business and gone to work for dad’s law firm.

Invest in property, young man

Over time a smart, hard working young lawyer like Bill would have done well and today he’d be the partner of a big law firm with a dozen investment properties – although some of the coastal holiday properties wouldn’t be going well.

While some things have changed in the last thirty years – funding is a little easier to find in the current angel and venture capital mania – most Australians couldn’t think about following in Bill Gates’ path.

Part of the reason is conservatism but a much more important reason are our taxation and social security systems.

Favoring property speculators over entrepreneurs

Under our government policies an inventor, innovator or entrepreneur is penalised for taking risks. The ATO starts with the assumption all small or new businesses are tax dodges while ASIC is a thinly disguised small business tax agency and assets tests punish anyone with the temerity to consider building an business rather than buying investment properties.

At the same time a wage earner is allowed to offset losses made in property or shares against their income taxes, something that those building the businesses or inventing the tools of the future are expressly forbidden from doing.

Coupled with exemptions on taxing the capital gains on homes, Australian households – and society – is vastly over invested in property.

Making matters worse, the ramping up of property prices over the last thirty years has allowed generations of Australians to believe that property is risk free and doubles in value every decade.

That perception is reinforced by banks reluctant to lend to anyone who doesn’t have real estate equity to secure their loans.

So we have a society that favours property speculation over invention and innovation.

Every year in the run up to Federal budget time tax reform becomes an issue, the real effects of negative gearing and other subsidies for housing speculation – the distortion of our economy and societies investment attitudes – are never discussed.

In Australia there are thousands of smart young kids today who could be the Bill Gates’ of the 21st Century.

The question is do we want to encourage them to lead their generation or steer them towards a safe job and an investment property just like grandpa?